On 18/08/2009 6:20 PM, Dirkjan Ochtman wrote:
> On Tue, Aug 18, 2009 at 10:12, "Martin v. Löwis"<martin at v.loewis.de> wrote:
>> In this thread, I'd like to collect things that ought to be done
>> but where Dirkjan has indicated that he would prefer if somebody else
>> did it.
>> I think the most important item here is currently the win32text stuff.
> Mark Hammond said he would work on this; Mark, when do you have time
> for this? Then I could set apart some time for it as well.
>> Have stalled a bit on the fine-grained branch processing, hope to move
> that forward tomorrow.
I'm afraid I've also stalled on this task and I need some help to get
things moving again.
1) I've stalled on the 'none:' patch I promised to resurrect. While
doing this, I re-discovered that the tests for win32text appear to check
win32 line endings are used by win32text on *all* platforms, not just
Windows.
I asked for advice from Dirkjan who referred me to the mercurual-devel
list, but my request of slightly over a week ago remains unanswered
(http://selenic.com/pipermail/mercurial-devel/2009-August/014873.html) -
maybe I just need to be more patient...
Further, Martin's comments in this thread indicate he believes a new
extension will be necessary rather than 'fixing' win32text. If this is
the direction we take, it may mean the none: patch, which targets the
implementation of win32text, is no longer necessary anyway.
2) These same recent discussions about an entirely new extension and no
clear indication of our expectations regarding what the tool actually
enforces means I'm not sure how to make a start on the more general
issue. I also fear that should I try to make a start on this, it will
still wind up fruitless - eg, it seems any work targeting win32text
specifically would have been wasted, so I'd really like to see a
consensus on what needs to be done before attempting to start it.
So in short, I'm still offering to work on this issue - I just don't
know what that currently entails.
Thanks,
Mark